Ken

It must be quite 'painful' not to have a link to fall back on!!!

Banana:Because you say it, Ken, does not mean we have to believe it or you What on earth are you talking about? Are you defending someone or just making another vague remark,

Ken you keep missing wonderful opportunities to keep your opinions to yourself Perhaps, but at least they are my opinions and not something I have read and simply believe because it panders to my ego!

I disagree, an intelligent person will know how opinions are formed! You have pointed to one straight away! Generally speaking articles in the press and the media generally and simply reenforce one"s particular prejudices or beliefs. Why do people read the Guardian, or the Telegraph, Times, Morning Star, La Croix etc? Because it supports their views. They don't have to read anything, they are already convinced they are right! The trick is to be objective and understand that whilst you don't agree with a particular view it is still relevant. Some simply can't understand that and whatever is written in a newspaper is gospel!! Some even quote newspapers because they are afraid of stating their own views and use the articles as fact!

You are right about one thing. Your opinion is of no importance, even though you don't give one. Back to arrogance! You are better informed and profess to speak on behalf of a number of French commentators! Oh dear! Quite sad really. Keep posting links to the press which you are so obviously and slavishly dedicated to, they are as relevant as you are.. Me, I prefer people who have a mind of their own and express their opinions rather than keep posting items from a press that agrees with their views.

Ah! So your opinion isn't your opinion! It's the perception of the French people is it? Do you actually have an opinion or do you simply. quote the press, which you evidently slavishly believe?

I'm afraid you will have to be more explicit! A vague question doesn't really elicit a clear reply!

It would indeed be most arrogant if it were suggested that someone is more widely read than another and therefore has a better understanding of an issue. That you do believe the opinion of journalists is your affair. Most people, I believe, are capable making up their own minds.

Perhaps you do or, perhaps you don't! Maybe you simply choose to believe what you read in the press and are persuaded by it!

I doubt anyone isn't aware as to why the man was punished as he was. The question is do we want one law for some, and a different law for others or even different interpretations? As far as I'm aware he was punished for slapping Macron not the symbol of the republic!! Had it been a minister who was slapped would the man have got 3 months not 4 and so on down the chain until we are back to the man slapping another in the street and just getting a fine!

Throwing flour, egg etc has been going on for, many years; not only here in France but in other countries notably Britain so nothing new. Certainly it can be defined as assault but a certain context and rational has to be kept I think. They are not all gun tooting terrorists! As regards slapping Macron, of course it is assault but if we are going to talk about fairness I just don't think the sentence handed out to this character was just! Would he have been given that punishment for slapping an 'ordinary' person? Would he have even been arrested I wonder!

Banana Ken, in future perhaps you might indicate to whom you are replying so that confusion might be avoided. Otherwise I fear we shall have Schleswig Holstein all over again You are right in that I should have indicated where the reply was to go! It was my mistake. I could make an excuse as to how it happened but doubt it would be believed.

There does seem to be some confusion! I was replying to Nick. Thank you for for explaining that there is a dictionary for idiots. I see there are others who have jumped on the bandwagon. Perhaps they , also could benefit from the dictionary! The point , anyway, that seems to have escaped you, and others, is that Cheesy stated something stupid and Nick P questioned it. I was simply saying that he wouldn't get an answer because it was stupid!!! I don't know, and don't care, that you may have been offended. I was replying to NIckP. In fact still stick to it, he won't get a reply!

'Any chance of an explanation or link to that information, please?' You won't get one because one simply doesn't exist!!

"So can we agree that the human body is more complicated than simply calorific value?" I wasn't aware there was a discussion about the complexities of the human body let alone agreeing to anything!! If anything there has been a tendency to disagree from many here that simply overeating makes you fat! Stating a lot of peripheral data, probably googled', isn't particularly relevant. What is so difficult with coming to terms with the fact that eating too much makes you fat? I too could write about body types, sub body types metabolism, exercise and physiology but I found when lecturing that it was almost a waste of time; people more easily understood , and connected with , if you eat like a pig you will probably look like one! That they understood!

A person 'burns' approximately 90-100 calories in covering a mile. It doesn't matter much if you run or walk it. A pound of fat contains approximately 3500 calories. Most people who are overweight are so because they are fat! Simple arithmetic: A person needs to cover over 30 miles to burn the 3500 calories in a pound of fat! Fat people don't cover 30 miles at any time which is partly , and only partly, the reason they are fat! In addition: The body just doesn't just burn 'fat' when exercise is taken;It burns protein and carbohydrate in differing proportions. So, the 30 miles equation is, in fact an underestimate and a great deal further needs to be run or walked to lose that pound! Now, the flat earth people may just have a point!! Exercise as a medium to lose weight is virtually a waste of time. Exercise is vital to health, no question of that but as a weight losing method is extremely poor. It can help, barely, but that is the best that can be said. The problem with Cherry picking information is that people read what they want to see and not what is the whole truth. The Harvard article being a case in point. Read the whole article and even they say don't eat too much!, Don't over eat or you will get fat! Eat less and you will lose weight. Just to put the cherry on the cake!!!! It is usually fat people who argue most strongly about weight loss, exercise etc. I wonder why?

'Sadly it is the medical community who are confused' I feel sure the medical community will get over its confusion , now it knows its confused that is. However as I stated about a 'calorie' it still stands and as simplistic as it may have sounded is correct. perhaps you could explain in a little more detail the 'events which are being looked at'? Just to alleviate the confusion that exists of course!

'Calories are absolutely not the same' You are confused. A calorie is a measurement of heat. There are different sources of calories, fat, protein etc and the calorific value of each source will vary. I could go on but I suggest you don't cherry pick information from Google!!!

It is very possible that the Professor concerned might be awarded research development money to look into this very aspect of inbuilt addiction added to ultra-processed, foods .. the now proven fact that engineered foods can be produced to induce craving where no craving existed before. How do you know that some of the foods you are presently eating do not already concern a smidgen of such a chemical .. you don't, or rather you can't, as they don't have E numbers or any recognisable annotation .. in fact, according to you they don't exist ? According to a TV program a professor maybe awarded money to do research into inbuilt addiction, maybe! Craving for food, absolutely! Sugar and salt is all that is required and no doubt chemicals could be used, no proof of that though. I have no idea if there are foods with a 'smidgen' of chemical to do that. Do you? As for 'according to me' I haven't said what you accuse me of. The fact is food with or without chemicals that could addict you or processed foods that are bad for you or any other excuse. Being fat is because you eat too much. I eat processed foods, no doubt I also eat foods that 'addict' me or have 'smidgens' of chemical in them but I'm not fat!!! The reason, (says he sanctimoniously) is because I don't over eat. It really is that simple! If you or anyone else is fat it is because you eat too much!!

I'm afraid so. Are you saying I'm wrong? Or is sarcasm your way of debating?

Ken, there are restrictions, they are just not being controlled all of the time. A bit like speed limits. It can be danced around as much as you and others wish but the question was "can someone cross into Spain without being tested or prevented. The answer is there are no rules or regulations stopping someone from crossing the frontier. Some formalities may be required in Spain but that doesn't mean you can't cross. Alluding to speed limits or being p-issed or anything else in ridiculous. You can. cross unhindered!!

Oh dear, Ken, self righteous and flogging dead horses springs to mind Indeed yes! You forgot to include those too arrogant to accept a truth!

It is quite obvious that the authorities are only at best making random checks in some places. Saying that anyone can cross into Spain without being controlled is a bit like saying you drove home p*ssed yesterday and no-one stopped you, so anyone can drive when they are p*ssed. What utter nonsense! The fact remains you can cross into Spain whenever you want. Your analogy is, quite frankly, stupid!

"simply no need to understand that not all calories are the same" Ignorance is, indeed, bliss. Calories are the same. That someone craves something because of its sugar, salt content is something a simple person should understand. There is no escaping the fact that you will get fat if you eat too much. This leads to an enhanced possibility of illness due too being fat. Type 2 diabetes is almost an epidemic due to people being fat. In my career it has been my experience that fat people are the most vociferous when it comes to defending being fat!

But, Ken, if certain chemicals are slipped into, say, bread which cause cravings for more then how is an individual supposed to know this, particularly kids. Not everyone is or can be a paragon of eating virtue. Then there are those food adverts, constant, unending….. Are 'certain chemicals' inserted into food to cause craving? I don't think so. yes there is sugar and salt etc that constitutes certain foods but that is, in my view, something entirely different to what you are suggesting.